● a new pedestrian-only link between the rear and front of the station;

● better drop-off and pick-up points;

● new toilets;

● the restoration of a number of historic architectural features.

FGW said it had made the lift bigger to better accommodate cyclists and disabled customers.

Spokesman Dan Panes said: "Bath Spa station was built more than 160 years ago as a gateway to the city, and it has changed very little since then.

"This work is designed to bring the station into the 21st century, improving access and facilities while steadfastly maintaining its heritage and its reputation as one of the UK's most stunning stations."

He said the fact that there was only a single entrance and exit to the station meant it got very busy at peak times.

"We'll open up two additional entrances – one at the back of the station and one that takes the place of the former Upper Crust shop."

Comments

Adam: That's more or less what I suggested, except that in plan 1 I was keeping the ramp as emergency access and for disabled/mother and child parking/drop-off to be at platform level. There was a no to that. But what we have on offer is the owrst of all possible worlds because we certainly do not have the integrated transport "hub" we were promised because there is a bus exit between the station and the bus station. The architects slipped up here - had the tower been at the railway station end, then you could have run a bridge across between the two stations, with a huge lift and /or spiral ramp down the central core of the tower. But we didn't get that either. If anyone had asked the designers/planners to come up with the worst possible result for just everybody, it would have looked a lot like what we're getting. Which is why B&NES spokesperson - normally so eloquent - is doubtless keeping schtum here - even he can't defend the indefensible.

I have seen images of a new building that will be built on the site of the existing ramp. As the building looks to be the same height as platform 2, wouldn't it make sense to use this building as a second entrance and exit. They could easily install escalators, stairs and lifts along with ticket barriers and possibly even a ticket office or machines. The rest of the building could be used for shops and cafe's for commuters and the people of bath too. By catering to the general public as well as commuters the building could remain open late into the evening, instead of closing just after peak times, which is usually the case. Maybe this is the plan, I don't know, but there is very little info on the web???

I have seen images of a new building that will be built on the site of the existing ramp. As the building looks to be the same height as platform 2, wouldn't it make sense to use this building as a second entrance and exit. They could easily install escalators, stairs and lifts along with ticket barriers and possibly even a ticket office or machines. The rest of the building could be used for shops and cafe's for commuters and the people of bath too. By catering to the general public as well as commuters the building could remain open late into the evening, instead of closing just after peak times, which is usually the case. Maybe this is the plan, I don't know, but there is very little info on the web???

Sorry, David, but those plans are out of date. You will also notice that the plans are now hopelessly behind time. This is because, thanks to what PW calls an obsession, I got through to the Department for Transport and the Office of the Rail Regulator that what was being proposed was inadequate and dangerous. They agreed, and an independent report was demanded, and changes subsequently forced upon the developers. In my view these changes are inadequate, but the crunch will come when the new lifts and staircases are in place and both ramps are closed. At that point the ORR will be conducting its own survey, officers actually making a personal visit to see if what has been built will cope with the traffic. I don't think it will, so in that case, the removal of the ramp will not go ahead - but it will be up to the ORR officers. If they are satisfied, then it can go ahead - if not, and it is demolished despite their objections, the ORR could with-hold the safety certificate, which would mean the station would be closed.
What also concerns me is that for all users of the station, it will be far less user friendly than it was before - you will have to go and queue for the taxis at the side, for example, even in the rain, despite the picture above. And it wasn't very user-friendly to start with. My preferred option would be to follow the model followed in many European cities (Lisbon and Tours leap immediately to mind) where there is a new state of the art station on the outskirts of town and then a shuttle - what the french call a navette - runs to the old main station. There used to be four lines at Bath Spa, and the original line was broad gauge, so there is plenty of space to lay the extra lines. This new station could be built at Westmoreland Road. However, FGW doesn't seem very keen on this, even though it would be a far more efficient solution.
I also showed plans by a local architect, made other suggestions, all of which would be better and at least one of which, my first scheme, the DfT team agreed was far better - but the developers don't seem interested in those either. I leave to people's imagination why not.
If wanting a really good and efficient station for all rail users, able-bodied and disabled is an obsession, as PW calls it, then I am happy to be obsessed. But if there are others out there who agree with me, please don't sit on your hands and leave it up to me - I have other things to do with my life. Start contacting the DfT and the ORR now.

The station works were detailed in this planning document (from page 6 onwards): http://tinyurl.com/3yhukso
I'm not sure if this plan has been superseded. The BaNES planning website is notoriously difficult to find stuff on.

Do you know, Mark, I had never thought of that. I went to see the MD of FGW armed with several alternatives, with and without the ramp, but they were all based on making the station more user-friendly for regular, local users, able-bodied and disabled, but probably cost more. Have I been slow on the uptake here?

Hmm, I wonder who thinks Southgate is a short stay car park.
If it's going to be more difficult to get to the station on foot, by bike or by car, is this redesign biassed in favour of incoming visitors rather than residents?

The trouble is, Mark, that the plans have been quietly altered, bit by bit, over the time. As a result of my complaints, there is now to be another staircase, but it is very winding.
Another mystery is the picture showing taxis at the front of the station - according to the plans, there will be no taxi rank at the front of the station - passengers will have to walk over to the side, even in the pouring rain. But Network Rail says it never agreed to this and wants taxis retained at the front. So who knows? There will, however, be no waiting - so if you want to pick up someone from the train, you will have to go into SouthGate car Park - and pay.